Author
Topic: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 (Read 9405 times)

Looks like the 40 mm is the obvious choice, especially for travel convenience - after all this lens is so diminutive there is no reason not to throw it in the bag. Now I just need to get over my 35 mm nostalgia

canon rumors FORUM

I know what you mean. I got my 35 before my sister in-law's wedding and it proved to be my best lens for that event. (I wasn't the wedding photog.) I had a new found fondness for this classic. Even after purchasing the 17-55, I still thought highly of the 35 as my low light, travel-light lens. Granted, I didn't like is as well as the 17-55 when I needed it in low light. But, it was still my travel-light lens. I put off the 40 for some time because I already had the 35, and it was faster. I thought the 40 was neat, but unnecessary. But, when the winter rebate hit and the price fell to $150, I gave in and ordered it. No offense to my 35 (or my 50), but I think this 40 is the new classic short prime. It will make you forget about the nostalgia for the 35.

I've made up my mind about this one now - you're probably right about the 40 being the new classic short prime. It is a stop slower but fully sharp wide open and helped by good high iso performance, it makes a very good case for itself.

Still if it was for use on APS-C only I would say the 35 has a fighting chance, but I need to prioritize on full frame use (My 7D is mostly used with long lenses for its fast AF and 1.6x TC equivalent w/o loss of a stop of light).

Choice made, I'll see if there's a chance to pick up a '40' with a rebate of some sort. After all, it's a nice to have, not a must have.

Is this like great artists or composters ? Their work is never fully appreciated until they are dead

It may be more alive than you think - today was another day where I was out shooting (old army bunkers) and having to choose between my 50 mm f/1.8 and Sigma 20 mm f/1.8 I found myself wanting a 35 mm. I settled on the 20 today because the framing for the 50 was way too tight.

In short, I've changed my mind. No 40 for me. Too tight, too slow.

I've reviewed the photo's I took over a year ago with my old 35mm f/2 and a lot of those were OOF due to AF problems that I think are the result of wear and tear on the tired old lens I had, but those shots that were focused on target are definitely good enough for my purposes.

The 40 mm is not going to cut it with f/2.8 and no IS - and the new 35mm f/2 IS is too expensive and bulky for my purposes. I'll give it another thinkover but chances are I'll mail-order the 'methusalem' 35 very soon

I've reviewed the photo's I took over a year ago with my old 35mm f/2 and a lot of those were OOF due to AF problems that I think are the result of wear and tear on the tired old lens I had, but those shots that were focused on target are definitely good enough for my purposes.

The 40 mm is not going to cut it with f/2.8 and no IS - and the new 35mm f/2 IS is too expensive and bulky for my purposes. I'll give it another think over but chances are I'll mail-order the 'methusalem' 35 very soon

Hence, I am again considering a new 35mm f/2 optic.

To round off this topic - I've ordered the 35 and included the hood The wider aperture and mechanical drive of the focus ring won me over. Besides, it's a nice partner for my 50 mm f/1.8 Mk I, and they can share the EW-65II hood!

Time for an update: I've had this little lens for a while now, and I used it especially for low light situations when I was on holiday. It's a little gem, far better than my old copy (day-and-night difference) so I'm happy to have bought it. It's a keeper

Time for an update: I've had this little lens for a while now, and I used it especially for low light situations when I was on holiday. It's a little gem, far better than my old copy (day-and-night difference) so I'm happy to have bought it. It's a keeper

Time for an update: I've had this little lens for a while now, and I used it especially for low light situations when I was on holiday. It's a little gem, far better than my old copy (day-and-night difference) so I'm happy to have bought it. It's a keeper

Well post some pics then !

Of course! These are unprocessed RAWs from my 5DII converted to jpg with DPP We did a fly-drive holiday in Turkey.

Good tones in your pictures. Looks like you went to some interesting places.

Recently I took both the 35 f2 and the 40mm to a shoot. Later when reviewing the images for pp there was a sequence which I though; 'yes that 40's much better than the 35', until I looked at the data and saw it was the 35. Red face.

Good tones in your pictures. Looks like you went to some interesting places.

Recently I took both the 35 f2 and the 40mm to a shoot. Later when reviewing the images for pp there was a sequence which I though; 'yes that 40's much better than the 35', until I looked at the data and saw it was the 35. Red face.

Your travel companion doesn't seem to be using a Canon. Tut- tut.

Haha underrated lens, that 35mm eh?

You're right - my travel companion (girlfriend) uses a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50. No way she wants to part with it. It is something special though - a 'compact' with a proper zoom and focus ring on the (optically superb) lens. Given enough light some of her photography puts me to shame with all my fancy kit

Consider the 28 f1.8 as well. It's much better build quality than either the old 35 and 50 1.4. Real USM AF as well. Very light, totally silent in use, close MFD and very good IQ even @ 1.8 center that is. Some consider the 28mm as an outdated focal length. I tend to like it. It works super as a walk around lens for me. Still considering the new 35 IS though.